> > I would also change attname to '*already dropped %d' for
> > examle to avoid duplicate attname.
>
> Okay, just curious here, but ... what you are proposing *sounds* to me
> like half-way to what started this thread. (*Please* correct me if I'm
> wrong) ...
>
> Essentially, in your proposal, when you drop a column, all subsequent
> tuples inserted/updated would have ... that one column missing? So,
> instead of doing a massive sweep through the table and removing that
> column, only do it when an insert/update happens?
>
> Basically, eliminate the requirement to re-write every tuples, only those
> that have activity?
And I think the problem was that there was too much code to modify to
allow this.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026